UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Andrew Lamar Pitts,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-13380

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Progressive Michigan Insurance Company, Mag. Judge David R. Grand

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS Plaintiff Andrew Lamar Pitts filed a complaint against Defendant Progressive Michigan Insurance Company in which he alleges breach of contract, or in the alternative, unjust enrichment. (ECF No. 1.) The complaint is not signed by Plaintiff, who is self-represented, and it does not establish that subject matter jurisdiction exists under

(a). In addition, Plaintiff also submitted an Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (in forma pauperis) that is completely blank except for his signature and date. I. Order Striking Plaintiff’s Complaint As noted, Plaintiff did not sign the complaint. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 11(a) provides in relevant part that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by . . . a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). The complaint is unsigned

and therefore does not comply with the signature requirement of Rule 11(a). Accordingly, the complaint is stricken. Plaintiff may refile a complaint that contains his handwritten signature. Any complaint

Plaintiff decides to file must also address the following deficiency regarding jurisdiction. One way in which a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction is

based on diversity jurisdiction. See Miller v. Bruenger,

, 990 (6th Cir. 2020). Federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction in civil cases “where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.”

(a)(1). A review of the complaint shows that Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to establish subject matter

jurisdiction under § 1332(a). Here, Plaintiff has failed to properly allege Defendant’s citizenship. Under

(c)(1), a corporation is deemed a citizen of both the state in which it is incorporated and the state where it maintains its principal place of business. See

(c)(1). The complaint alleges that Defendant is “an Ohio corporation” with “its principal place of business outside Michigan.” (ECF No. 1,

PageID.2, ¶6; PageID.1, ¶3.) Plaintiff does not specify the state where Defendant’s principal place of business is located. Accordingly, the Court lacks sufficient information to determine Defendant’s citizenship and

therefore whether subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship exists. Plaintiff must properly allege Defendant’s citizenship in any future complaint he chooses to file. Failure to establish jurisdiction

may result in dismissal of the action. II. Order to Submit Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs Plaintiff submitted a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) Federal courts “may authorize the commencement

. . . of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees . . . by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement . . . that the person is unable to pay such fees.”

(a)(1). Inadequate

completion of an application to proceed in forma pauperis is grounds for denial of that application in the Eastern District of Michigan. See Shaw v. Oakland Cnty. Friend of the Ct., No. 20-12492,

, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 2020).

Here, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is empty except for Plaintiff’s name, his signature, and the date it was

presumptively signed. Plaintiff has not provided any of the information requested on the form. (ECF No. 2, PageID.7–8.) Without this information, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is unable to

pay the applicable filing fee. As a result, Plaintiff must file a completed Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.

For reasons stated above, the Court orders: (1) The complaint (ECF No. 1) is STRICKEN and not part of the record.

(2) If Plaintiff would like this case to proceed, he must submit a complaint that includes his handwritten signature and that properly alleges Defendant’s citizenship (state of incorporation and principal place

of business) by December 1, 2025. (3) If Plaintiff would like the Court to consider his Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs he must submit a complete application by December 1, 2025. In his submission he must answer each question that appears in the application.

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Eastern District of

Michigan Local Rule 41.2 and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (

(c)(1)). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2025 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 3, 2025.

s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager